GIFT  OF 


GIFT 

MAR  29  1915 


SUITER  BASIN  BY-PASS 

RIVER  CONTROL  and 

JACKSON  REPORT 

Adopted  by  the 
State  of  California 


Statements  of 

HON.  V.  S.  McCLATCHY 
President  of  the  State  Reclamation  Board 

HON.  W.  T.  ELLIS 
of  the  State  Reclamation  Board,  and 

E.  A.  BAILEY 
State  Flood  Control  Engineer 


RECLAMATION  DISTRICT  No.  15OO 

CALIFORNIA   FRUIT  BUILDING 
SACRAMENTO,  CAL. 

March  10,  1915. 

Hon.  Hiram  W.  Johnson,  Governor; 
Hon  J.  M.  Eshleman,  Lieutenant  Governor; 
Hon.  C.  C.  Young,  Speaker  of  the  Assembly, 
and  Members  of  the  Senate  and  Assembly 
of  the  State  of  California. 
Gentlemen: 

The  State  of  California  has  adopted  the 
report  prepared  by  the  Federal  Engineers  providing 
for  a  systematic  and  comprehensive  plan  of  river 
control,  and  the  State  Reclamation  Board,  appointed 
by  the  Governor  to  compel  all  work  of  reclamation 
to-  conform  to  that  plan,  has  in  the  performance  of 
his  duties  laid  out  the  lines  of  the  by-passes  for- 
merly a  part  of  that  plan.   Among  others  is  the 
so-called  Sutter  Basin  by-pass.   Reclamation  Dis- 
trict No.  1500  is  now  engaged  in  building  one  of 
the  lines  of  that  by-pass,  and  bills  are  now 
pending  consideration  in  the  Legislature,  provid- 
ing for  the  completion  of  such  by-pass.   Those 
who  are  opposed  to  the  action  of  the  State  author- 
ities have  indulged  in  much  misrepresentation, 
based  probably  on  a  misunderstanding  of  the  facts. 
They  have  been  particularly  insistent  in  charging 
that  those  who  are  now  engaged  in  reclaiming  Sutter 
Fasin,  so  as  to  convert  a  body  of  waste  land  into 
fertile  acres,  induced  the  Reclamation  Board  to 
change  the  location  of  the  Sutter  by-pass. 

An  answer  to  these  charges  is  found  in 
the  statements  of  Hon.  V.  S.  McClatchy,  President 
of  the  State  Reclamation  Board,  Hon.  W.  T.  Ellis,  a 
member  of  such  Board,  and  E.  A.  Bailey,  State  Flood 
Control  Engineer.   These  have  appeared  in  the  daily 
press,  but,  as  they  may  have  escaped  your  atten- 
tion, they  have  been  herewith  reproduced. 

The  State  of  California  is  pledged  in 
honor  to  proceed  with  the  plans  adopted  by  its 
officers,  on  the  faith  of  which  owners  of  land  in 
Reclamation  District  No.  1500  are  now  engaged  in 
reclaiming  land  and  in  carrying  out  the  policy  of 
the  State. 

Yours  truly, 
...  „  F.  W.  KIESEL, 

'*V  /-./Pj^sident  of  the  Board  of  Trustees 
.-.  •  •;,  ..  [   b:f ''Reclamation  District  No.  1500. 


HON.  V.  S.  McCLATCHY 

The  President  of  the  Reclamation  Board 


(From  Sacramento   Bee,   March   6,    1915.) 


RECLAMATION  BOARD'S  ATTITUDE  IN 

ARMODR  PROJECT  STATED  IN  LETTER 


President    of    Board    Says    Request    for    Change    in    Location    of 

Sutter  By-Pass  Did  Not  Come  From  Armour  Project,  But 

at  Suggestion  of  State  Engineer;  Declares  Board's 

Policy  Has  Been  Misstated 


MARYSVILLE  (Yuba  Co.), 

March    6. — A    letter    was    writ- 
ten      by       V.       S.       McClatchy, 
President     of     the     State     Rec- 
lamation   Board,    to    R.    V.    Mc- 
Cormick,       Secretary       of       the 
Committee   of    the   Merchants'    and   Em- 
ployers'   Association    of    Marysville    and 
Yuba    City,    in    connection    with    Sutter 
County    reclamation    matters. 

Board's  Attitude  Stated. 
The  letter  was  written  in  response 
to  an  invitation  to  the  State  Recla- 
mation Board  to  attend  the  Yuba  and 
Sutter  County  reclamation  meeting 
here  yesterday  afternoon.  The  invi- 
tation was  extended  by  McCormick. 
The  answer,  written  under  date  of 
March  3rd,  follows: 

There  was  considered  by  the  Recla- 
mation Board  at  its  meeting  yester- 
day, your  letter  of  March  1st,  invit- 
ing the  Board  to  be  present  at  a  mass 
meeting  in  Marysville  on  Friday, 
March  3rd,  to  learn  "the  attitude  of 
the  property  owners  of  Sutter  and 
adjacent  counties  in  reference  to  the 
Armour  project,  as  at  present  out- 
lined." The  Board  commissions  me  to 
express  its  appreciation  of  the  invi- 
tation and  further  to  say: 

The  Board  is  familiar  with  the  atti- 
tude of  Sutter  County  in  this  matter, 
as  given  out  in  a  formal  set  of  reso- 
lutions adopted  in  a  public  meeting 
on  February  27th  and  in  a  petition 
from  the  Board  of  Supervisors  of  that 
County  to  the  State  Legislature  now 
sitting. 

\o    \ew   Facts    Offered. 

This  attitude  is  based  on  opposi- 
tion to  a  decision  of  the  Board  as  to 


the  location  of  the  Sutter  by-pass. 
Like  a  Court,  the  Board  is  not  con- 
cerned in  criticism  of  its  decisions 
unless  such  criticism  is  based  on 
newly  discovered  facts.  There  have 
been  offered  in  this  matter,  so  far 
as  the  Board  can  learn,  no  facts  that 
were  not  passed  upon  by  the  Board 
and  the  engineers  at  the  time  the  de- 
cision was  made. 

The  request  for  the  change  of  the 
location  of  the  Sutter  by-pass  did 
not  come  originally  from  District 
No.  1500,  as  the  people  of  Sutter 
County  persist  in  stating.  That  Dis- 
trict expected  to  base  its  application 
on  the  central  location  of  the  by- 
pass. It  based  it  on  the  eastern  lo- 
cation at  the  suggestion  of  the  State 
Engineer,  made  while  his  field  force 
was  completing  surveys  of  the  basin, 
who  had  determined,  because  of  data 
secured  therefrom,  to  recommend  the 
change  of  location  to  the  Federal  En- 
gineers and  to  the  Reclamation  Board. 

Board's    Policy    Misstated. 

In  some  other  matters  the  people 
of  Sutter,  in  their  official  declara- 
tions, have  misstated  the  policy  and 
action  of  this  Board,  due  undoubtedly 
to  lack  of  knowledge  of  the  facts. 
These  facts,  however,  can  be  readily 
had  from  publications  issued  by  the 
Board  and  from  the  records  supple- 
mented, if  necessary,  by  communica- 
tion from  this  office. 

The  Board  deprecates  statements 
of  this  nature  based  on  misinforma- 
tion as  they  create  obstacles,  more 
or  less  serious,  to  a  speedy  comple- 
tion of  the  general  project  for  pro- 
tection of  the  Sacramento  Valley. 


393264 


HON.  W.  T.  ELLIS 

of  the  Reclamation  Board 

(Sacramento   Bee,   March   6,    1915.) 


Answers  Critics  of  the 

Reclamation  Board 


ELLIS  TELLS 


Member  of  State  Board  Springs 

Surprise  at  Sutter-Yuba  Mass 

Meeting  at  Marysville; 

Other  Speakers 


MARYSVILLE  (Yuba  Co.), 

March  6. — The  accusation  by 
W.  T.  Ellis,  a  member  of  the 
State  Reclamation  Board,  that 
Superior  Judge  K.  S.  Mahon 
of  Sutter  County  and  A.  Z. 
Massey,  Superintendent  of  the  Tisdale 
ranch,  on  the  Sacramento  River,  are 
not  thoroughly  conversant  with  the 
plans  of  the  California  Debris  Com- 
mission for  the  improvement  of  Cali- 
fornia rivers  and  waterways,  and  a 
defense  of  the  members  of  the  State 
Reclamation  Board  who  are  working 
with  him  on  reclamation  work  and 
flood  control,  were  the  unexpected 
features  of  the  meeting  held  in  this 
city  yesterday  afternoon  under  the 
auspices  of  the  Marysville  Chamber  of 
Commerce  and  the  Merchants'  and  Em- 
ployers' Association  of  Marysville  and 
Yuba  City,  creating  a  sentiment 
against  certain  bills  introduced  in 
the  Legislature  affecting  reclamation 
work  in  California. 

The  Marysville  m-eeting  was  an  ad- 
journed session  of  a  meeting  held  in 
Yuba  City  last  Saturday,  at  which 
time  the  action  of  the  Legislature  and 
the  State  Reclamation  Board  in  chang- 
ing the  by-pass  of  the  Sutter  Basin 
from  the  center  to  an  easterly  location 
was  decried. 


Judge  Mahon  and  A.  Z.  Massey  had 
concluded  lengthy  talks  when  Elli£ 
was  called  upon  to  address  the  meet- 
ing. 

Defends    Reclamation    Board. 

Replying  to  the  assertion  of  Judge 
Mahon  that  the  change  of  the  Sutter 
Basin  by-pass  from  the  center  loca- 
tion to  the  easterly  location  was  not 
to  promote  reclamation,  river  im- 
provement or  flood  control,  Ellis  made 
the  defense  of  his  colleagues  on  the 
State  Reclamation  Board  in  the  follow- 
ing language: 

"Now,  regarding  the  members  of  the 
State  Board  of  Reclamation,  the  orig- 
inal members  were  Mr.  V.  S.  McClatchy 
of  Sacramento,  Peter  Cook  of  Rib 
Vista  and  myself. 

"Mr.  Cook  is  a  man  of  high  char- 
acter, has  lived  in  the  vicinity  of  Rio 
Vista  many  years,  has  many  interests 
there,  and  is  of  excellent  standing  and 
a  gentleman  in  every  sense  of  the 
word.  He  was  not  influenced  by  any 
reasons  only  what  he  considered  fair 
and  just  reasons  for  that  change. 

"The  same  applies  to  Mr.  Mc- 
Clatchy. It  is  my  duty  to  say  here 
that  every  member  of  the  Reclama- 
tion Board  is  doing  what  he  thinks 
fair  and  just." 

Real    Object    of   Board. 

Continuing,  Ellis  said: 

"From  the  talks  by  Mr.  Massey  and 
Judge  Mahon,  I  gather  that  they  have 
a  very  wrong  conception  of  the 
plans  of  the  California  Debris  Com- 
mission. It  is  unfortunate  that  the 
public  at  large  does  not  understand 
the  entire  scope  of  the  plans.  Mr. 
Massey  states  that  the  Reclamation 
Board  is  going  to  do  certain  things. 

"I  will  tell  you  about  the  State 
Reclamation  Board.  A  party  came  to 
my  office  a  few  days  ago  and  said: 

"  'Bill,  we  never  had  any  trouble 
until  we  had  a  State  Reclamation 
Board;  all  trouble  got  started  as  soon 
as  the  Board  was  inaugurated.' 

"But  he  did  grasp  the  fact  that 
trouble  was  coming  long  before  the 
Board  was  inaugurated,  and  that  it 
was  organized  to  take  care  of  the 
trouble  that  was  coming.  This  Board 
of  Reclamation  is  misunderstood.  We 
should  have  been  called  a  Board  to 
look  out  for  the  rights  and  interests 
of  the  Sacramento  River  and  its  trib- 
utaries. The  Sacramento  River  de- 
mands that  because  it  is  physically 
unable  to  take  care  of  its  own  rights." 

Explains     Problem. 

Before    entering    upon    his    talk    Ellis 


impressed  upon  the  meeting:  that  he 
was  not  addressing  the  assemblage  as  I 
a  member  of  the  State  Reclamation 
Board,  but  as  a  citizen  and  taxpayer 
of  Yuba  County.  He  reviewed  the  his- 
tory of  flood  control  from  1880,  and, 
by  aid  of  a  map  prepared  by  the  State 
Engineer's  office,  explained  all  the 
problems  now  facing-  the  Board  on  the 
Feather,  American  and  Sacramento 
Rivers,  and  in  the  vicinity  of  the  City 
of  Sacramento. 

How    Change    Was    Made. 

Ellis  assured  the  meeting  that  the 
shifting  of  the  Sutter  Basin  by-pass 
was  not  instituted  by  Armour  and  his 
associates.  It  was  done  upon  the  sug- 


gestion of  State  and  Government  en- 
gineers, he  said,  and  if  any  one  was 
guilty  of  an  error  it  was  the  engi- 
neers, whom  he  credited  with  being 
honest  in  their  conclusions,  although, 
personally,  he  did  not  agree  with  them. 

"Either  the  center  or  easterly  loca- 
tion of  the  by-pass  was  satisfactory 
to  the  Government  from  an  engineer- 
ing standpoint,"  said  Ellis. 

He  stated  that  Reclamation  District 
No.  784,  just  south  of  Marysville,  is  a 
failure,  because  the  promoters  at- 
tempted to  put  a  volume  of  water  into 
a  choke  where  there  was  no  room  for 
it,  ignoring  all  rules  of  reclamation 
projects  such  as  are  now  made  by  the 
Reclamation  Board. 


E.  A.  BAILEY 

State  Flood  Control  Engineer 

(Sacramento  Bee,  March   6,   1915.) 

How  Sutter  By-Pass 

Came  to  Be  Changed 

E.  A.  Bailey,  State  Flood  Control  Engineer,  Originated 

Plan    of   Re-location   from   Surveys   in  the  Field; 

East-Side  Location  Found  Decidedly  Preferable 

With  respect  to  insinuations  that  have  been  made,  to  the  effect  that  the 
change  of  location  of  the  Sutter  Basin  By-Pass  was  influenced  or  originally 
suggested  by  the  interests  owning  and  controlling  Reclamation  District  1500, 
in  Sutter  County,  E.  A.  Bailey.  Flood  Control  Engineer  of  the  State  Depart- 
ment of  Engineering,  and  assigned  by  the  State  Engineer  to  work  with  the 
Reclamation  Board,  to-day  made  to  a  Bee  reporter  a  full  statement  of  the 
facts  in  the  matter,  showing  the  change  to  have  been  due  to  his  own  personal 
observations  and  surveys  in  the  field,  in  accordance  with  his  official  duties.  It 
shows  the  insinuations  in  question  to  be  entirely  without  foundation. 

The  statement  follows: 


E.  A.  Bailey,  Flood  Control  Engi- 
neer of  the  State  Department  of  En- 
gineering, assigned  to  work  with  the 
Reclamation  Board,  made  the  follow- 
ing statement  to-day  to  a  Bee  re- 
porter: 


I  arrived  in  Sacramento  and  re- 
ported to  Mr.  McClure  for  duty  on 
May  31,  1912.  In  the  note  book  in 
which  I  kept  record  of  my  work,  I 
find  the  following  entry  under  that 
date: 

"Received  letter  of  introduction  to 
Mr.  Stanley  of  the  U.  S.  Army  Engi- 
neers, with  instructions  from  State 
Engineer  W.  F.  McClure  to  work 
with  Mr.  Stanley  on  his  work  of  de- 
fining the  by-pass  proposed  in  plan 
of  flood  control  adopted  by  the  State 
Legislature,  Chapter  25,  1911." 

This  indicates  that  it  was  Mr.  M<-- 
Clure's  understanding  at  that  time  that 
the  definite  location  of  by-passes  had 
not  been  made,  and  that  the  Army  en- 
gineers were  conducting  a  survey  for 
that  purpose. 


I  reached  Mr.  Stanley  at  Butte  City 
on  June  2d,  and  found  that  he  was 
checking  up  elevations  of  existing 
levees  to  find  how  much  work  had 
been  done  since  the  Debris  Commis- 
sion report  had  been  made,  and  that 
he  intended  later  to  make  surveys  in 
the  Yolo  Basin  for  tiie  location  of  the 
Yolo  by-pass. 

I  assisted  Mr.  Stanley  in  his  work, 
covering  the  Sacramento  River  from 
Butte  City  to  the  lower  end  of  Grand 
Island,  reaching  that  point  on  June 
18th. 

An    Opinion    l!:is«*«l    on    Observation. 

From  a  study  of  the  Debris  Com- 
mission report  and  of  the  river  dur- 
ing this  trip,  I  formed  the  opinion  at 
that  time  that  it  would  be  unsafe  to 
attempt  to  confine  all  the  waters  of 
the  Sacramento  River  to  the  river 
overflow  channel  from  Chico  Creek  to 
the  proposed  Moulton  weir  location, 
and  that  probably  the  Butte  by-pass 
should  run  further  around  the  Buttes, 
making  the  Buttes  act  as  one  levee 
as  far  as  possible,  and  extend  up 


pretty  well  towards  Chico  Creek,  and 
that  the  by-passes  of  all  the  basins  in 
general  should  be  located  as  nearly 
as  possible  on  a  uniform  grade  be- 
tween the  fixed  elevations  at  the  head 
and  the  outlet  of  each  basin. 

On  June  18th  I  went  to  Rio  Vista 
and  had  a  conference  with  Peter  Cook, 
as  is  indicated  by  the  following  quo- 
tation from  my  note  book: 

"I  found  that  Fred  Thomas,  Secre- 
tary of  Ryer  Island,  whom  I  expected 
to  see  in  regard  to  information  from 
his  levee  district,  was  out  of  town, 
but  that  Peter  Cook,  who  is  one  of  the 
members  of  the  Reclamation  Board, 
lived  at  Rio  Vista.  I  called  upon  him 
and  had  an  extended  conversation  with 
him  in  regard  to  the  work.  He  recom- 
mended that  our  investigations  con- 
sider whether  or  not  the  Yolo  By-Pass 
might  be  moved  to  the  west  far  enough 
to  occupy  a  strip  of  alkali  land  bor- 
dering the  tule  lands,  which  was  com- 
paratively worthless.  He  also  ques- 
tioned the  necessity  of  so  wide  a  by- 
pass, as  from  8,000  to  12,000  feet." 

This  record  shows  that  an  addi- 
tional reason  was  suggested  for 
changing  the  location  of  the  by-pass, 
namely,  that  of  soil  values. 

Conferred    With    State    Engineer. 

On  June  20th  I  returned  to  Sacra- 
mento and  talked  with  Mr.  McClure 
and  Major  Norboe,  discussing  these 
points,  and  was  instructed  by  Mr.  Mc- 
Clure to  conduct  our  investigations 
along  these  lines.  I  suggested  tha'i 
since  existing  reclamation  districts 
were  not  shown  upon  the  maps  of  the 
Debris  Commission  report,  and  as  I 
had  found  that  in  a  number  of  cases 
the  by-pass  lines,  as  indicated  on  those 
maps,  were  run  through  existing  dis- 
tricts, one  thing  that  was  very  much 
needed  was  to  obtain  data  upon  all 
existing  reclamation  districts  and  pre- 
pare maps  showing  their  locations. 

This  was  agreed  to  and  I  worked 
upon  this  matter  until  August  31st, 
when  I  was  requested  by  Mr.  McClure 
to  obtain  a  party  and  make  surveys 
on  the  Feather  River,  from  the  mouth 
of  the  Feather  to  the  mouth  of  the 
Bear  River,  for  the  purpose  of  deter- 
mining 'whether  or  not  the  Feather 
had  scoured  sufficiently  so  that  the 
overflow  channel  provided  in  the 
Debris  Commission  plan  of  a  width  of 
3,000  feet  could  be  reduced  to  about 
1,250  feet,  as  requested  by  Mr.  Snook, 
who  was  wishing  to  form  a  reclama- 
tion district  between  the  Sutter  By- 
Pass  and  the  Feather  River.  The  date 
of  the  commencement  of  these  surveys 
is  indicated  by  the  following  quota- 
tion from  my  note  book:  "September 
1st,  2d  and  3d  (holidays),  spent  in  get- 
ting survey  party  ready  to  start  for 
field  to  Verona." 

Locating  the   Sutter  By-Pass. 

This  survey  was  completed  and  Flood 
Control  Report  No.  2  made  to  Mr.  Mc- 
Clure September  28,  1912.  Upon  the 
completion  of  that  survey  my  instruc- 
tions were  to  continue  the  field  party 
on  surveys  on  the  entire  Sutter  Basin 
for  the  purpose  of  defining  the  loca- 
tion of  the  Sutter  by-pass,  as  it  was 
understood  that  the  Army  engineers 
intended  to  confine  their  work  to  the 
Yolo  Basin.  The  instructions  were  also 
to  make  test  bearings  and  take  soil 


samples   to   be   analyzed   for   plant   food 
'values. 

This  survey,  including  the  soil  sam- 
pling, was  completed  on  December  24, 
1912,  as  indicated  on  page  51  of  orig- 
inal note  book  marked  "S.  B.  No.  20." 

During  the  progress  of  this  survey 
I  traveled  over  the  Basin,  covering 
practically  all  the  portions  of  the 
Basin. 

The  idea  which  I  had  for  the  loca- 
tion of  the  Sutter  Basin  at  that,  time 
is  shown  by  the  location  on  the  ''Ele- 
vation Map  of  Sutter  Basin"  of  a  line 
running  from  the  Southwest  corner  of 
Levee  District  No.  1,  at  the  quarter 
corner  between  Sections  14  and  23  of 
Township  13  north,  Range  2  east,  in  a 
southeasterly  direction  to  approxi- 
mately the  quarter  corner  between 
Sections  5  and  8  of  Township  12  north, 
Range  3  east.  This  line  was  run  on 
the  ground  between  November  7th  ana 
14th,  1912,  as  sho\\n  by  original  notes 
in  transit  book  No.  2,  marked  "S.  B. 
No.  11." 

+  Origin    of    Change    of   Plan.  > 

O        This      record      proves      that      we 
O   were     working     upon     a     plan     for 

0  an    eastern    location    of    the    Sutter 
<  >   by-pass     before     any     request     was 
<>   made    for    any    change    in    the    by- 
^   pass    from    any    of    the    parties    in- 

>   terested     in     District     15OO,    as     the 

'  ^   purchase    of    the    Wyneman    prop- 

[   erty    was    not    made    until    Novem- 

[   ber   12th,  and   Mr.   Handle   was   not 

*   employed      as      engineer      for      the 

Slitter     Dasin     Company    until     No- 

'      vember    18,     1912,    and    he    made    a 

.  ^   report    to    his    company    upon    the 

^  ^   central     location     of     the     by-pass 

^   on    December    1O,    1JH2. 

I  have  no  record  of  the  date,  but  I 
believe  that  it  was  after  Mr.  Randle's 
report  upon  the  central  location  that 
he  called  at  our  office  in  the  Fair 
grounds  in  regard  to  plans  for  District 
1500,  and  at  which  time  I  asked  him 
to  wait  until  we  had  completed  our 
surveys  and  worked  out  a  location  for 
the  Sutter  by-pass,  because  I  did  not 
believe  the  central  location  was  the 
best  one  for  the  Sutter  by-pass. 
District  1500  Followed  Suit. 
This  Mr.  Randle  did,  and  as  soon  as 
we  had  completed  our  calculations 
and  made  our  location  of  the  by-pass, 

1  advised    Mr.    Randle    that    the    proper 
method   of   procedure   would   be   for   his 
district     to    present     an     application     to 
the   Reclamation   Board   for  approval   of 
plans     following     the     location     worked 
out  by   the  Department  of  Engineering. 

Flood  Control  Reports  Nos.  9  and  10, 
from  the  State  Department  of  Engi- 
neering to  the  Reclamation  Board, 
showing  our  reasons  for  advising  the 
change  in  the  Sutter  by-pass,  were 
completed  February  21,  1913. 

Application  for  the  approval  of  plans 
for  District  1500  was  made  to  the 
Board  February  25,  1913. 


Randle    Confirms    Bailey's    Statement. 

Engineer  Randle  to-day  confirmed  to 
The  Bee  the  correctness  of  the  above 
statement  by  Engineer  Bailey,  as  re- 
peated to  him  in  substance  by  tele- 
phone, with  regard  to  the  latter' s 
statements  concerning  District  1500 
and  the  origin  of  the  plan  for  chang- 
ing the  location  of  the  Sutter  by- 
pass. 


(Sacramento    Union,    March    6,    1915.) 


TELLS  OF  LOCATION  OF 
SUTTER  BASIN  BY-PASS 

Engineer    Bailey    of    the    State    Reclamation 

Board  Says  He  Himself  Suggested 

the  Change  in  Route 


The  suggestion  that  Gerber  or  the  Chicago  capitalists  or  any  other  person 
connected  willi  the  Slitter  Basin  company  suggested  the  change  in  the  by-pass 
from  the  center  to  the  eastern  location  is  not  true.  It  v»as  the  other  way.  I 
suggested  the  change  in  route  from  the  trough  of  the  basin  to  the  eastern 
rim  as  the  only  feasible  location. — E.  A.  BAILEY,  reclamation  engineer. 


This  is  the  story  of  the  Sutter  by-! 
pass  as  told  by  the  man  who  first  fixed; 
its  location  along  the  eastern  rim  of 
Sutter  basin.  Around  this  proposed! 
drainage  channel  for  the  flood  waters! 
of  the  upper  Sacramento  a  controversy; 
of  increasing  bitterness  has  raged. 

Five  counties  have  united  to  oppose: 
the  state  reclamation  board's  action  in: 
locating  the  by-pass  along  the  eastern; 
edge  of  the  Sutter  basin. 

Charges  have  been  made  that  the  lo- 
cation of  the  by-pass  was  fixed  along: 
the  line  finally  chosen  by  the  state 
reclamation  board  engineers  simply  to; 
suit  the  purposes  of  certain  Eastern 
capitalists  and  at  their  instigation.- 
There  have  been  intimations  of  undue* 
influence,  but  no  one  has  openly  made: 
such  charges. 

The  by-pass  system  is  one  of  thej 
vital  features  of  thes  system  of  flood 
control  prepared  by  the  California 
debris  commission  report  and  included 
in  the  so-called  Jackson  report  of  that 
body. 

That  portion  of  the  by-pass  skirting 
Sutter  basin  over  which  a  controversy 
is  raging  is  the  first  unit  of  the  great 
flood  control  project  to  be  begun  with 
the  exception  of  dredging  the  mouth 
of  the  river,  which  has  been  in  prog- 
ress for  months. 

In  consequence,  the  history  of  the 
location  of  the  drainage  channel  is  not 
only  of  deep  interest,  but  it  is  also 
vital  to  a  clear  understanding  of  the 
dispute  between  the  people  of  Sutter. 
Yuba  and  other  northern  counties  and 
the  Sutter  Basin  company. 

STORY    OP    THE    ENGINEER. 

E.  A.  Bailey,  the  engineer  of  the 
state  reclamation  board,  made  the  sur- 
veys and  this  is  his  account  of  the 
work: 

"In  the  beginning  I  would  like  to  say 
that  when  the  map  of  the  proposed  by- 
pass system  was  prepared  by  the  debris 
commission  and  embodied  in  the  so-  i 


called  Jackson  report  the  drainage 
channels  or  by-passes  were  simply  laid 
down  on  the  geological  survey  map 
without  regard  to  reclamation  districts 
or  other  improvements  made  by  the 
people  of  California. 

"In  its  lower  course  the  by-pass  cut 
Ryer  Island  in  two,  and  if  constructed 
along  the  route  indicated  would  de- 
stroy an  immense  area  of  fertile  and 
well  reclaimed  land.  It  ran  straight 
through  the  Glide  district,  south  of 
Sacramento,  and  also  cut  West  Sacra- 
mento in  two. 

"The  Jackson  report  laid  down  as  a 
general  principle  the  proposition  that 
the  by-passes  were  to  follow  the 
'.roughs  of  the  basins,'  and  in  follow- 
ing out  this  principle  the  by-passes 
were  laid  out  on  the  map  by  the  con- 
tours of  the  geological  survey  along 
these  depressions  in  the  land. 

"I  was  appointed  to  the  state  engi- 
neering department  by  Engineer  Mc- 
Clure,  assigned  to  the  reclamation 
board,  and  began  work  on  June  12, 
1912.  The  army  engineers  were  then 
in  the  field  making  a  survey  of  the 
river  in  connection  with  the  work  of 
the  debris  commission,  and  I  was  di- 
rected to  accompany  these  engineers. 

FACING    GREAT    PROBLEM. 

"I  soon  found  that  we  were  facing  a 
gigantic  problem,  and  secured  the  per- 
mission of  McClure  to  take  up  a  sep- 
arate branch  of  the  work.  I  saw  we 
needed  a  map  showing  the  exact  loca- 
tion of  all  reclamation  districts  and  ail 
levees  along  the  rivers,  as  the  govern- 
ment maps  included  none  of  these 
things. 

"For  two  months  I  worked  on  this 
division  of  the  problem.  I  covered  the 
country  thoroughly  from  Butte  City  to 
Rio  Vista.  I  studied  the  problem  from 
all  angles,  and  finally  reached  the  con- 
clusion that  the  plan  suggested  by  the 
Jackson  report,  to  run  the  by-passes 


through   the   troughs   of  the  basins   was 
wrong  for  two  reasons. 

"In  the  first  place  it  would  compel 
the  running  of  water  down  hill  into 
the  deepest  parts  of  the  basins  and 
then  up  over  high  ground*  In  other 
words,  it  would  simply  impound  a  por 
tion  of  the  flood  water  in  the  deep 
portions  of  the  channel.  I  found  that 
this  plan  would  also  take  a  large 
amount  of  the  best  land  for  the  by- 
passes and  reclaim  inferior  land  along 
the  rim  of  the  basins. 

FAVORS  CHANGE  I IV  PLAN. 

"I  reached  the  conclusion  that  far 
better  results,  from  an  engineering 
standpoint,  could  be  obtained  by  run- 
ning the  by-passes  as  we  would  ditches 
or  canals  along  a  grade  as  nearly  uni- 
form as  possible.  We  could  then  use 
for  the  waste  waterways  the  inferior 
land  along  the  margins  of  the  basin? 
and  save  for  cultivation  the  good  land 
in  the  troughs  of  the*,  oasin. 

"Up  to  this  time  I  had  in  mind  no 
particular  section  of  the  proposed  by- 
pass. I  was  studying  the  great  prob- 
lem in  all  its  aspects  and  was  seek- 
ing to  establish  a  general  principle  for 
the  work  we  had  to  do. 

"I  discussed  the  matter  with  Peter 
Cook,  then  a  member  of  the  reclama- 
tion board,  who  is  probably  as  familiar 
with  reclamation  work  as  any  man  in 
the  state.  I  found  that  he.  too,  was 
strongly  in  favor  of  running  the  by- 
passes along  the  contours.  He  pointed 
out  that  good  land  could  be  saved  by 
this  method. 

"In  September  I  was  recalled  to  Sac- 
ramento to  make  a  survey  of  the 
Feather  river  to  ascertain  if  the  width 
of  the  by-pass  along  that  river  fixed 
in  the  Jackson  report  at  3.000  feet 
could  be  safely  reduced  in  width. 

"This  survey  was  made  at  the  re- 
quest of  Frank  Snook  ~.nd  others  who 
proposed  to  reclaim  some  of  the  land 
along  the  Feather  river.  I  found  that 
it  would  not  be  safe  to  reduce  the 
width  of  the  by-pass.  Snook  and  his 
associates  then  abandoned  their  plan. 
This  survey  was  made  in  September, 
1912. 

"I  then  turned  my  attention  to  the 
Sutter  basin  proper.  At  this  time,  it 
should  be  stated,  the  only  location  for 
the  by-pass  was  that  fixed  on  the  map 
of  the  Jackson  report,  which  ignored 
all  the  millions  of  dollars'  worth  of 
work  done  by  the  various  reclamation 
districts.  In  addition  to  the  3,000-foot 
by-pass  along  the  Feather  river  a  simi- 
lar waterway  line  ran  through  the 
trough  of  Sutter  basin,  joining  *  tfre 
Feather  by-pass  at  the  ju'nctJOJb  Of 
that  river  with  the  Sacramento.  *•  ^ 

"We   made   a   complete   survey   of  the 


Sutter  basin,  and  by  about  the  first  of 
February,  1913,  we  had  the  contours 
and  profiles  of  this  region.  Up  to  this 
time  there  had  been  no  sug'gestion 
from  any  one  as  to  the  location  of  the 
by-pass  except  that  contained  in  the 
Jackson  report. 

"I  had  made  a  tentative  location  for 
the  by-pass  well  to  the  east  of  the  line 
fixed  in  the  debris  commission  report, 
but  when  I  had  all  the  data  I  found 
that  my  location  was  still  too  far  west, 
and  we  wrere  forced  to  extend  our  lines 
to  give  the  proper  location  according 
to  the  contour  and  secure  canal  grade. 
•  "About  this  time  George  Handle  was 
appointed  engineer  of  the  Sutter  Basin 
company,  ajnd  he  came  to  me  to  fix  the 
exact  location  of  the  by-pass  along  the 
line  indicated  by  the  Jackson  maps. 

"I  told  him  my  theory  as  to  the 
proper  location  of  the  by-pass,  and  said 
I  was  sure  the  center  location  in  the 
trough  of  the  basin  was  wrong.  At 
this  time  I  had  not  completed  my  work, 
and  told  him  to  wait  a  few  days. 

"When  I  finished  my  surveys  I  told 
Randle  that  the  figures  confirmed  my 
opinion  and  showed  him  the  by-pass  as 
at  present  fixed  on  the  map  by  the 
action  of  the  reclamation  board. 

"This  system  brings  the  Feather  by- 
pass and  the  Sutter  basin  by-pass  to- 
gether some  distance  above  the  mouth 
of  the  Feather  and  gives  a  wide  chan- 
nel  for  the  flood  waters. 

"The  suggestion  that  Gerber  or  the 
Chicago  capitalists  or  any  other  per- 
son  connected  with  the  Sutter  Basin 
company  suggested  the  change  of  the 
by-pass  from  the  center  to  the  eastertp 
location  is  not  true.  It  was  the  other 
way.  I  myself  suggested  the  change 
in  route  from  the  trough  of  the  basin 
to  the  eastern  rim  as  the  only  feasible 
location. 

"The  Sutter  basin  people  simply  ac- 
cepted the  change  and  their  work  was 
done  according  to  the  plans  laid  down 
by  the  reclamation  board. 

"I  would  like  to  say  in  conclusion 
that  there  seems  to  be  a  serious  mis- 
understanding  of  this  by-pass  matter, 
The  by-pass  consists  of  two  levees  and 
the  land  that  lies  between  them.  The 
cost  of  the  construction  of  the  entire 
work  must  be  apportioned  among  the 
owners  of  the  land  benefited  by  the 
by-pass  in  proportion  to  the  amount  of 
the  benefit. 

"In  other  words,  the  west  levee  of 
the  by-pass  is  not  the  levee  of  the 
Sutter  basin.  Nor  is  the  east  levee  of 
the  by-pass  the  levee  of  the  land  own- 
ers on  the  east  of  the  waterway.  But 
both  levees  are  the  levees  of  the  by- 
pass which  is  part  of  the  flood  con- 
trol svstem  of  the  state." 


News  Print 


Sacramento 


Gayiord  Bros. 

Makers 
Syracu»«f  N.  Y. 


YC 1 07657 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


RETURN  TO  the  circulation  desk  ot  any 
University  of  California  Library 


